This is a simple question with complicated implications. However, I'll keep it simple as possible while keeping it relevant... Short answer, is that chances are, yes--and they were likely more intense than now.
To understand why, consider the following--At the moment, the land masses that previously made up Pangaea are split somewhat uniformly across Earth's surface, splitting the planet's Oceans into two main parts, the Pacific and the Atlantic. This does two things; it makes the oceans exposed to the heating necessary for cyclonic storms to form smaller, and spreads out the overall landmass, which is more reflective to the Sun's rays than the ocean. Contrary to popular belief, we live in cooler times as a result of this.
Pangaea was a different story. All the land mass was on one side of the planet, and concentrated mostly at or to the south of the equator... leaving one massive ocean across the rest of the planet. Additionally, the eastern edge of Pangaea within 30 degrees north or south of the equator (most common latitudes for tropical cyclones) had a lot of shallow continental shelf zones. Lastly, the setup I've just described made the planet VERY warm. Minimal sunlight was reflected, and the majority of it was absorbed by the oceans, leading to what must have been massive convective activity, I.E. hurricanes, Typhoons, etc. The more ocean they have to form in, the bigger they can get... and there may have been no better time for them.
Bear in mind, geological records indicate that the effect of winds and sunlight hitting the Earth at different latitudes seem to have changed very little overall. Aside from that, there is not much physical evidence to suggest these storms, as the coastal areas that would have been affected were subject to millions of years of intense weathering and erosion. So the above 'theory', if you will, is merely just that--a theory. It is based on applying current atmospheric mechanics and physics to a situation millions of years ago. All we have is evidence of life at the time, atmospheric composition and temperature. This is based on those things.
Pangaea.
Pangaea was a supercontinent that existed around 335 million years ago, while Pangaea Ultima is a hypothetical future supercontinent predicted to form in around 250 million years. The main difference is that Pangaea was a past supercontinent that has already broken apart, while Pangaea Ultima is a potential future configuration of Earth's landmasses.
The upper part of Pangaea is called Laurasia. Laurasia was the northern supercontinent that formed after the breakup of Pangaea during the Mesozoic Era.
Alfred Wegener named his single land mass the Urkontinent or Pangaa. This has passed into general use as Pangaea.
The supercontinent that existed when all continents were connected is called Pangaea. Over time, Pangaea began to break apart due to tectonic movements, eventually forming the distinct continents we have today.
Pangaea's
Pangaea is from the Earth. It was always there
Pangaea don't no
Pangaea gets its name because it's a greek word for "all Earth".
Yes if Pangaea was a supercontinent it has to be huge
pangaea
No. Pangaea broke up long before humans evolved.
Go to google and search Pangaea
When the fact the pangaea was discovered became known.
No, "Pangaea" is not capitalized unless it is at the beginning of a sentence.
What is the pangaea theory? The Pangaea theory is one that states that all present continents were once together and collectively known as a 'supercontinent' called a Pangaea. i think they are not same question,.
the name of the continent that existed 225 million years ago was pangaea